The Sun. — London, England, 1808-12-15 00:00:00

,tv rate 'the celotity with which thgv mi t ;ht ire hl‘(: crossed the Tagus, would have. been di- Had the other road been blocked by the the Trench must have fought another battle, d, eaten, as hewas- convinced they would have )cen, they blight have been closely 'followed by a m; t, it not by the whole of our army. The position Santarem, in particular, appeared to him to be at with very tittle danger, and with very great :advantage. With respeCt to the mode of supplying •',llre corps there with provisions, that he had fully ci : icuSsed• in the letters which he had written to Sir H. Burrard on the subje6t. He %visited to state ' t more particularly the strength or . the corps. Which he - rhad under his ,command. On the loth of August 'they - amounted t0t3,000 men, and he had a promise of 6000 Portuguese troop, which did not join him. On Ibe !gilt he heard - of the arrival of General An -1; stoulter's brigade on the o4tst, and on the 20th that General reached ivlac.ira Roads. On the Ist the British Army consisted of 17,0 - 00 British troops (ex elusive of 1600 Portuguese,) successful, in high spirits, well 'equipped, and,amply provisioned. •ft , was not lair to estimate the enemy's force at above .20,000 men, from which number was to be. de- ducted the garrisons of Almaida, Elvas, Peniche, and the forts on the ,Tagus, leaving only a force of 1 5 AK) 0 men . for their operations in tlfe field. On the. 20th he had considered it adviseable to advance. On the 21st,the enemy being completely defeated at ail points, he had repeate , ily proposed to Sir.FLlrry Bustard to advance in pursuance of his original pilni of opt rations. His lemons for Thi:ll:ing that to ad '4,Jvatice would be beneficial were before the Court, and it would 4e for the Court to decide upon them, d, and on the evi(ience.t hat had been adduced in their • I support. Re-UlliSt, however, take the-.opportunity .1 to •obServe, that although he. Was decidedly of opi nion that the Inost It - 11pm taut advantageS would • have resulted from allowing him to pursue the %lc ttry gained over the enemy on the 21st of August, yet it by no means followed, that to allow the eva cuation of P,,rttigal on the 22d, was an impolitic pro ceeding. On the 21st the enemy were,in contusion. On the 22d they were no longer in confusio,o. They had reiurned their positions. The relative situations of the I , Aoarmies were materially changed in that short time; .and that of-the French was greatly improved by our having negletled promptly to follow up the - blow that had been struck the preceding day. The , battle of the 21st might be considerod as atrial of between the two armies; and he was per suaded.that had the vanquished been instantly pur sued, they would not have risked another battle. They were not. however ; and on the 22d,the Bri tish had no means to prevent them from crossing. tae Tagus, but by entering into a Convention for the evacuation. of the country. - Question by Sir H. BuititAnb.—Had not the British army the same means of advancin g by' Mafra on the morning of the 23d, when Sir H. Dalrymple , ordered it.. to march, as it had Cgr' the 20•:11, when, -Sir A. Wellesley intended it should have marched ? Sir A. WELLESLEY.—I do not think that the army could ha‘. - e marched with as much facility by Matra on the 23d as I thought it might, on the 20th. There was thisdifference--on the 23J, I be lieve, Matra was occupied by a French corps; on • the 20th it was not. Po answer to questions from the President, Lord and Gen. Nicholls, Sir A. WELLESLE'Y stated, :hat the occupation of .Torres Vedras would have plated. the British on the shortest road front the position of the two armies to Cabasa. The French had. retrsated from all pciuts of the attack to the Northward, elipareiktly with the intenion of ifalling into the road Ir-ow -Torres Vedras to Lunyar, by • wh,cit they had advanced to the- attack. He con-. ceked that the righ.:ot the British arri:y was neater to Torres Vedras that the enemy ,Were, and there fore he thought that our right might have: readied Torres Vedras beleire the enemy could have effected their retreat to it. He COUlti Dot S:ty that he ob served. the procedings of the French corps,. describ ed in the e‘idence given, on the preceding day by Major- General Spencer. According to Geo. Spen cer's description, he saw it formed about an. dour after the enemy had been defeated, on the left of the • British, and to ;he Northward on the road toTorres Vedras. By , that accurate description of the position of this Fiduch r orps, it must have been about the same distance from 'forces Vedras as our right, and Le conceived that d must have been on the ground, or at no very great 'distance from the ground on which General Spencer saw it, about the time that he proposed to Sir tl. Burrard to pursue the enemy. The right of the British army (properly so called) was not attacked on ihe ts , . ; the attack was made on the right of the centre ; and all the French troops which attacked General nine's and Gen. Austro tiler's brigades tetired to the Northward, with the exceptiou possibly of some sonill detachments, of, which however he had seen mone. Sir A. WELLESLEY, adrer ing to the letter which it was supposed he had Wr;tten to the Bishop Of Oporto, on the '2 4 th of August, bbserved, that on examining papers he had fouud copies of two letters wrridt he had written to the Bishop, but nei ther of them was that ascribed so him . . Whether he had or had not written this List, he could not pretend so say ; from certain peculiarities in the Ntyle, he rather thought it was not , written by ; but he had no hesitation in saying, that he adopted as his O wn all the sentiments whi..it it contained, • Sir Firtay BULIRARD read to the Court, a short statement 'of the ni , itires by 't bleb he- had beep in= iluenced in his conduct in Portugal. As far as Irons the IoA - lone in .which be uttered them, we could coded the tenor of his observations, -it.was as fol lows :—That his reasons for not ailowing Sir A. Wellesley to pursue the adwintai. , es which had been. gained on the list, were his b elief' thar the whole force of the enemy bad not been engaged in that ac -tion; a:A that he did. not understand Unit in any event it would be • raL":tic:able to cut oil ,the - retreat of any large body. The extensive lines occupied by the Britkh 4.lrtny, were not favourable to its ad vance. The centre had been warmly engaged for an hour and a half., The enemy possessed,a very large and superior torte of cavalry, which; in any ulterior movement, might have been brought into action with treat effect. When Sir Arthur Wel lesley proposed to him to al.ow site troops to ad vance, he was -aware that, by his deterMivation, tie The toteman of the shop in which the Plaintiff worked for four or five years,,•statod, tha: be had often seen woman, and that she and the Pia:n- LON i)( N : Priivea by It crs RU ii Au It 9, ot No. 4, A:;rtlzstr.court, Pow-Atiret ; At the buN-Ovrty 1 . 0. I t ttrauci 'Piro i•isenients, Orders t should not please" army in the niomenf of triumph ; and hee - trusted that those who knew him would be sAisfied that the prohibition whit:h he was compelled to pronounce was in violation of his feel ings, anti resulted solely - from his sense of duty, and his conviction at that moment, that under all the circumstances of the case, the advance of the'British troops could have produced but little advantage s and might have involved them in inextricable diffi culties. He lamented the absence of the whole of his Staff, who might otherwise have assisted Linn in his exculpation, and have corroborated his state ments ; and he was sure that the Court would sym pathise with an Officer placed in such an unusual predicament. If he had erred, was error of judg ment alone. He •had decided upon .what he had seen and heard, and took upon himself the whole responsibility of what had happened ; but he trust ed.;_that after a deliberate examination of the evi dence that had been given before them, the Court - would.be of opinion that the line of condud_which he had pursued had" been dictated -by a due regard, to the safety of The army entrusted to his command. , (During the latter part of these observations Sir H. Burrar'il,was visibly much cllebled.) Sir NAVRLLESLEY.—" Although I did and do differ from Sir H Bullard withrespen to the expe di'ency or inexpediency of alloy.ing the British army to pursue the advantages they had gained on the 21 st of August, I hope I may be allowed to take this opportunity of declaring to the Court and to the Public,' that I am convinced Sir H. Burrarci, in the ,determination which he adopted, was _influenced by such motives alone as'an Officer ought to feel, and that he had solely in view the safety of the army and the advantage of the country. • After an uninteresting. examination of Sir H. ,Burrard by SiF Hew DalrymPle and Sir Arthur Wellesley, L Sir H. DALRYMPLE read, and submitted. to the consideration of the Court, several explanatory ob servations. If, on any former ,occasion he had stated his military opinions in too decided a tone, he trusted that .that would be attributed merely to the impres sion made on his own mind, that he had aCled to the best of his judgment, . and not to any dispoSition to • impugn the judgment of another. He was glad that the.general orders which he had caused to 'be issued . in Portugal, bore ample testimony to his sentiments of she valour of the British troops, and the skill of their leader, in the in:..;.ions that had there been .I fought. After the evidence that had been brought forward in the Court, he could re-assert with con fidence, that his landing and assuming the command in Portugal had no preponderating influence on the evacuation of that country by the French ; an event with the expediency that led to which he was wholly unconnected. With respect to the Convention it self, 'he had the concurring opinion of the General Officers who surrounded him in its favour; and lie solemnly asserted, that he still, thought it thd best measure that could have been adopted ; an opinion in which ii ihe Court should do him the honour coincide, he should cheerfully submit to the disad vantages and mortification which it had in other re speCts occasioned hint. - The PRESIDENT'IeII observed, that the Court had finished the examination of eidence, and that all the ulterior proceedings ,aud arrangements would take o:tee with closed•dcors.—At fitie o'clock the Court adjourned. L .r 1 1) (MT. COURT O Nib F KING'S BENCH, DEC. 13. • CRIM CON. IN LOW LIFE. LONGHURST V. PEACHEY. *Mr. GAt:noW stated, that 'this was an anion brought against - the Defendant, for Criminal conver sation with .the.Piaintiirs wife. Many of these ac tions had occurred in our days, and it would not be nt-c - .essary on . the present occasion to make any, ob serva:inns, The, parties were not in a very high situation 'in life, as they commonly .were in cases of tins description, but dire4-aly the reverse ; for the Plaintiff was a .I,:urneyman Carpenter, and the De fendant was.a Painter and . Glazier. - The Plaintiff and his wife were lodgers in the, house of tbe.Deten dant ; - havlng lived there for some time in great comfort and happiness, the Plaintiff found his wife's affections 'anating apace, and he conjec tured-that all was not "tight between her and the De febdant. He - found atterw'ards, that the Detendan t had taken her to a bagnio. The Jury, on hearing a I thesejads proved, would give their verdict for th e Pl,iintitf, with such damages as the justice of the case required. _ _ _ . „ The first witniss proved that the Plaintiff, and a woman whose name he did not know, were married at St. Mary, Lambeth, in February 1803, but could trot tell whet her they had cohabited together in con sequence of that marriage: . Tire Plaitnifis wife's brother proved, that, on the Ist of November last, he called on the Defendant at his house,, for. the purpose of talking over this buSi tress, when the DefendanCs wile was present, and therefore be desired the Defendant to withdraw with him, for that he had, something particular .to cons muuicate to-him, without mentioning it in the hear ing of the wife, who .was then present, who becarne immediately eager, of course, to hear what it was. The witness told her she would ;war it time enough. Then said the Defendant, " I have been connected with L,...Orurst'S •wife !"—" 0 very well ! that is all I want to, know," said the witness: he then made•the Defendant a bow, and went off. Mrs. Crook said, she lived in St: George's Fields, at a place called " Pleasant Retreat ;" was a grezn groCer, 'and let bed-rooms for lodgings (a brothel, in short, though she did not say so ;) the Defendant had called 'several' times at her house with two dif ferent women, and went up into a bed-room with them ; it was made when he went up, and wanted making when he came down ; but this wimess could not,prove that either ()fare's° women was the wife, althocsll there was not much doubt of the 'fad ; but it did not come - out by legal evidence. The Defendant had paid toe witness each time he had been there. tiftmliabited together comfortably ; and lid always; considered them as husband and wife. . - There wag no, evfence for the Defendant ; but • Mr. PARKE stated -for him; that this was only a scene in a brothel between .the Defendant and this Woman, perhaps ; but that was not proved : and very probably he had been there with others. But .however immoral a man the Defendant might be, and he was not defending his morality, yet this case was not made out against him by legal evidence.' 'Lord ELLENBOROUGH observed, that such an aEtion a, this, for Criminal Conversation, he had , never before witnessed in a Court of Justice. -.ln every a&ion of this sort, it had been proved how the patties had lived together, and according as they had so lived, the damages, in many cases, very much de pended. Here nothing of that sort appeared. In the first place, although -he did not mean to deny that the Plaintiff was married to this wonian, yet that was lett doubtful upon the evidence.. It did not follow that the•woman now called the Plaintiffs wife, was the woman he =tried five years ago. She might •be dead, and the person now called his wife might not be .so. As to the confession of the De fendant, it was ektreniely, to be suspelled by the Jury. The words were—" I have been conneaect with Lonhttist's wif.!." There was no period men tioned fur that connection, and it might. have been befo - re her marriage with the Plaintiff.. The Wit ness went away imthediately after the words were uttered ; had he - staid, it Was possible that the De fendant tn ght have explained their meaning diffe rently fro.n the - interpretation put upon them by the witness, and therefore this species of confession ouiht to be laid out of the case altogether. As to the adultery, that was but - obscure upon the evi dence: But supposing the Jury to be satisfied with the evidence, and that the adultery was proved, the question would be, what damage they. would give, of that they were the judges.—Verdict for the Defendant. COURT OF KING'S BENC/I, DUBLIN, DLQ. 9. BEFORE MR, JUSTICE OSBORNE, ANII A SPECIAL JURY. SLANDER. LEONARD IeNALLY, ESQ. 77. JosErn HUBAND,•ESQ. The parties in this case are Barristers. The de claration stated, that the Plaintiff- was appointed Deputy Seneschal of the Archbishop of Dublin's" Manor of St. Sepulchre, _and discharged his duty with 'great integrity, receiving considerable emolu ment, until the Defendant, in a' conversatioiL with the. Archbishop, uttered the slanderous Words charged, in consequence of whic i ll the Plaintiff was deprived of his of - Ike, to his damage in the sum of 50001. The words were—" there will be no peace in " the Manor while this man is Seneschal ;-,-he is " attempting to lessen your Grace's revenues, and `f depriving individuals of 'their property." Mr. HOARE stated the Plaintiff's case, ; and Mr. BURRO - WES that of the Defendant.—:The sum of the evidence, which was by no means equal in interest to the expectation the trial had_eicited, was nearly as followS . - The Plaintiff, who is an inhabitant of the Ma- . nor, had been ,a . member of a. Grand Jury of St. Sepulchre's, which had presented, as a nuisance, i n piece of ground in which the Defendant had some interest ; the Defendant, who was an old acquaint ance of the Plaintiff, wrote him. a letter, setting, forth the absurdity of presenting as' a nuisance a piece of grouted (which_ "it - was ir)pOssibleto re move) ; and stating various other objettions in pOint of l'aw to the proceeding, and to some of the Grand Jurors, as being interested in the present ment they had made. The Grand Jury, however, proceeded, and' requested the Plaintiff to draw a, proper . presentment, which was done, and the ab , surdity pointed out by the Defendant was correa ed, by making the walls and ditches bounding the ground in question the object of the presentinenr.— During these transaCtions, about 'Dociernber, 1807, the Plaintiff was appointed Deptity Seneschal, and his son, who is an Attorney of the Manor Court, was employed to carry forward, the proceedings on the presentment. In about a month after the tip , pointment of the Plaintiff, the principal Seneschal (Dr. Diti , Y ' enan) resigned, with whose resignation fell the Deputy's appointment ; and . the Gentleman who was appointed Seneschal in his room detertuin ing to ata without a Deputy, Mr. 'Nally Ceased to fill that situation. To prove the slan'erous words, Mr. Thomas Wildridge deposed, that, on the 23d of linuary, 1808, he met the Defendant in the street, and said he was sorry to hear that he (Mr. Huband) had been instrumental in removing the Plaintiff horn his situation ;—to which the Defendant answered,— " I was nut only instrumental, hut the c,:ulie of it ; fOr I told the .Archbishop that there would- he " no peace in the parish while he continued De " pu:'y ;_ that he was lessening his revenues, and, attemphng to , deprive individuals of their pro . - " perry." These words Mr. NV. said he had co mitred to paper by the desire of Mr. 111‘Nally ; but he was not able to state positively whether he had heard before that time that the Plaintiff intended to . bring an aftiou. The witness was then shown- an address to the Plaintiff, dated on the 27th ofJanuary, I 808, expressive of•regret that the resignation of * Dr. Duigenan should have deprived him of the oftlee of Deputy ; which address the witness admitted he had signed with the other Grand Jurors of the Ma nor Court. Evidence was then given to spew, that the whole of the Deputy's office was from one to two hun dred pounds per annum during the- time of Dr. Duigenan's continuance as Seneschal -- ; the Doctor taking none of the profits, but giving all - to the Deputy. Iticharl Guinness, Esq. one of the Police Magi strates, deposed to the proper demeanour of.. the Plaintiff the discharge of the_ office of Deputy.- Seneschal. On the part of the Defendant it was insisted, that the Plaintiff should be non-suited ; that he had failed in proving any conversation with the Afch bishop, witotu he might have called upon to give testimony ; that he had not produced Dr. Duigenan, who was actually in Court, to. she x• that tie had re,iigned in consequence- of any such. conversation ; and that he had given no evidence whatever of- his (the Plaintiff's) having: been depti; ei ,of the. office of Deputy. The Learned Judge thoug:,t there was'evidence for the Jury to cons!dTr in the teSiimony given by Mr. Wildridge ; what weight they should g ive it was not fur him to appreciate. • • The only evidence offered by the Defendant Wept to prove, that in the transa6tion o f the Piecd6 of ground presented by the Grand Jury, he h a no private interest, nor any objea but public inv . provewent. • Jotttl aBA R RINGTON spoke to eviden ce for illy The Learned'Judge recapitulated the evidence Icl the Jury. He obseryed strongly upon the PlaintifFi: not offering the best evidence in his power in sup port of his anion : the evidence of the Archbisho t p; to whom the w ords were charged to have bee spoken, or the evidence of Dr. Duigenan, beet could have distin`clly stated the motives which 11/.. duced him to execute the resignation by which ,th 6 Plaintiff's office had been extinguished: the . I ° 3f had, however, the testimony of Mr. Wildridge 34 to the Defendant's admission ; it was for thou l , consider the credit due to that evidence, an d to 0 their verdi& accordingly. 'The Jury and a vcrdi& for the Defendant , `Ni 1 costs. 'WILLIAM AItMIGEg Scaters, South M !ton. or the Patieir, fetters fur the Ldiiut, bost-P2id) ARRIVALS FROM EvDIA. Passengers per Woraester—Nlajar F. Penree, Capt. „ col .. field, Mr. Wynne, Surgeon ;Capt. De Bergeon, Mr. 1.1 lug, Mr. Burgess,andMr. Casson. t o• Per sir tVilliarn Pulteney—Col. Slaps, Lady. an" " 'l c( children Capt. Watson and 1 AY; Ca 134nncrinan Lady ; Mr. Malcolm, Lieut. O'Brien, Cart. Wissoud, 13ungan, Capt. Burns, and Mr. Fancourt. • Per Walpole—Lieut.-Colonel and M rs. .Carnegie ; Lie u" • Colonel and Mrs. Wynyard•• Lieut.-Colonel RobertTurt!! Mr. Clw rj" • lieutenant boughs, Enbign ' 'F. Keunawa and . Y, • Listof Passengers who have prOceeded, frail ] •-. 1 9.. bay to China, and eventually to Europe Major Young, of the Infantry, and amity, iii the 1 George. Lieut. Passengers per Warley —Capt. F.yles and fami l y of Thomas Srnee, of the Marines; Mr. William Steadman, the Civil Service, Per Country Ship Canton—Capt. and Mrs. Matigil:infi. - Per Country Ship Windham—Lieut. Pearch, of "- jetty's Gth Reiment. {'ate{'atePer Country g Ship Lowjee Family—Lieut. COW .'" quharson. Per Thomas Grenville—Col. Oakes and fi'n /ilv iiaw l" l a cest' ''' . Scott- and family, Lieut. Boy; Marines; Lien t , 2 .- 0 - , - i of the Royal Navy, Dottor Bayer, of the 7 8 th —°-112e • Capt. An - drew Scott, of the country servic::. • Saturday week, Mr. Bud en, of Dartford , tc ; , 4 W stopped near Gravel-hill, by two footpads. ie s was proceeding home, in the dusk of the eve in (where he had received a large sum of moneY)'„ o r his chaise, in which his servant was driving 3 spirited young horse, when two, men rustle(' " ,- " to them near the above-mentioned place, one o f ‘ c" o seized the horse's head, and the other carne or. , 4 Mr. and demanded his money. Mr. suPP°,lij that the man had only a bludgeon in his hand,,s:i.ie he would not be bed, and resolutely kept robber with an' um rob brellr whiehhe had with 111111 _1 SO 1,e,(7,4 the chaise, when ,the .ruffian, irritated by pee.led a resistance, with dreadful. itn out to his companion .to shoot the a ccl , ( o nand which he instantly endeavoured_ to put ecution, by firing a pistol aimed . dire6tly flugden's head : fortunately the ball alertly fablid along the lower part of the jaw-bone and cl , i' h t intliaed a slight wound, The horse, ahirmej 3clea report of,the, pistol, started off at speed, „; ;be , dolim the Villain at his head, ,;inkl' dashed ( I °‘ c it. ' sc ,,vithout doing or sustaining any injury. .I. l tlE cond shot was,fired when the horse ran fortunately s.vithoUt effea, SHIP NEWS. . . GRAVESEND, DECEMBER 13. . . ni . 00! .. Passed by-the Sir Andrew Haminond, 13arrt P l * - . muda. : i 1 1Z isb a l' Sailed-the General Miranda, Orr, for janl 3 , c ctit - I'llompson, George, May, and tIW Vorothea.."' - Cott:ntburgh. _'.- of - Lately, - at Bath, the Lady of Daniel Mackinnon, a Son: tinrte t : oo lo;;, MARRIED. oft f On the loth ult. at Ipswich, Captain Meaclnum it o 0 , 24th Infantry, to Miss Sarah Coote, youngest ilia l gcc 0 the late Captain Coote, and grand-niece to the late o' lie' , Coote. . . On the tBth ult. at Wellwood-House, Ayrshire , M r. V.J 4I ; masr.reensivelas, Ilreiver, of Catrine, to Miss Ei n ii.' , t iii , : i . son. It .is . remarkable that the father and ! wither 01 "j to I • alive, and ,ach'of their families consi. , .ts of s ix t.: 0 " 5 ' l , l- ,i c ar.' daughters, the youßgest of whom is up wards of of age, and neither or them have hat{ a death ill their .. , f )0 v Orr the ad inst. at Lambeth Church, Mr. Ed, o , '''',.`'). ll ' ot - Pimlico, to Mrs: Ann Dawes, of ktirtelagh-str' ~,„ lice', grand-daughter of the late Key.. Dr. Ilutrers•,looll''' Ott tire, 12th inst. at Swanbourne, in lluck illb to lames Elarniiton, Esq to Miss Harriet Wynne. , iris-' o f Lately, tire 'Hon,. .Mr. Kinz • brother of I,"r‘i' (1. T Miss'redcrOftv.4laughter of d a thatuel Tredc' r° Ilorshain. . • - -----"*"..---'' LIMO. a ced ' ll • On the sth,iat. at Rossington, near Doncaster,. —o.o' 'Eleanor, eidest dziugliter ot the Rev. lames tuillo! Rettor of that place. Cooper, Soircitar, • r 1 Y tr ,; On Friday last, Mrs. Eleanor E , :zritt Codper, wl. c , c , jai P•erer Mestaer, Esq. ot Wansted, in Esse.x. • "ri GO On Saturday lair, at kirnharn Cttage, Dorset, _Ol. VII zri.iy-st reet, a:A datigilta ot to` Ker, Esq. of Nlorriston, in the County ot berwiek, ak,c..r.:,so . • On Sunday evening, a: his houte in c.nnberwell 'f'- i ' n 0 4 'cock, of the Mr. Nathaniel Basnelt, in his' 65th car, warty Yea r service of the Hun. I , :astr India Cd: II P 4 RY: Richard 114°1.. On the ,r3d ult. after a short illness, Mr. .. ~ t.ondon't lorel, Al bernacle- str,.et. CoV , On the tzth,ot Oetober, at Messina, Mr. Thomas per, of a fever, • r- • • Calll.l ` In November last, at Dougl:'s Isle of Man, Hiss , rine Robinson. __.-----------' PRICE OF . 4 7TOCKS Bank Stock, 2 . 35 Navy s Pei Cem. shi:t Irish 5 per Cent. 4 per Cent. St 3 ,-per Cent. keel. G 5? 3 per cent. Ann. IS 1-16di DAY. India Stock s K 4 pr. India B on ds, 7s .-• . I 3r, ()Innsxchecr: bills, 8 , ..>• p • urn, i 1 'd is. 6 1 1 ~ Iniperi.il 3 per (-ea t. -, Div° .. , kritt. 6 61 Cons. tor 0 Pcning, ' ~.." ------ , - --7-- -... I 1 -M () I?" PESTER I, •ti-. -- HICII WATER AT LC)N1)01s: IIRIDC;!:; 1 • • r' ROW. 3 . ' q* ' Morning, 4o min 2 after 12. Afternoon, strez.t, (;':Osverio!—squJrc, itlSt 64e